Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5840433" data-attributes="member: 6668292">The players knew. The PCs didn't. This seems to matter to this group, and seems to be part of their social contract.I still hold that if they all act in-character, it makes sense to have it unfold the way it did. If they act with a meta view, the mercenary's player should help not burn bridges with the town, where the other players have an investment.One is (if successful) completely removing himself from interacting with the PCs again (fleeing). One is probably going to be dismissed, according to the GM (cooperating), and the PC will likely interact with the other PCs afterward.How? As of this point, all players are following the same criteria when determining actions: acting based on what their characters know and believe. Including the mercenary. How are the players who are continuing to cooperate with the town (where the assumed story resides, from the sound of it) disrupting the game by sticking to the exact same style that the mercenary is, albeit without cutting ties to the town?The mercenary can cut ties to the party and it's not disruptive, but the other PCs are disruptive? I don't get the logic.He didn't block it. It was an option. He found out, through asking the players, that the mercenary would probably leave the area completely, and that the others wouldn't side with him. Pointing out the consequences of character actions amongst the party alone (not taking into account the town's reaction to him fleeing) is the GM saying "you realize that you're saying you're planning on leaving, and that they won't back you, because you're all doing 'what your characters would do.' "The GM didn't block it, and it's misleading to indicate that he did.GMing in a heavy-handed way. It is heavy-handed. You're purposefully pushing a situation to attempt to achieve a particular outcome. You're forcing an event, rather than letting it unfold. This is just as heavy-handed as having zombies or children get in the path of the horse while it fled, which is something the player indicated he didn't like.Not everyone has your goals when they play, pemerton. It's disrupting to your preferred style. A player who made decisions on what his character thinks in-game based on player knowledge is metagaming, and would be considered "game-disrupting" in my game. It wouldn't in yours.Game-disrupting is going to vary from group to group. This group's social contract seems to include "acting in character" even if that doesn't include always getting along and getting each others back.What does that add? Well, to my group, it adds interesting inter-party conflict on more than a superficial scale. I like when one player morally objects to an act that others are okay with. The compromise that is reached in-game is interesting. Even direct opposition can lead to interesting results. Back in 3.5, I had a PC Sorcerer refuse to participate in something he didn't believe in, and the rest of the party carried on without him, but it was interesting seeing it play out without Teleports and the like.It also adds a level of realism or verisimilitude to our game. I've had the party be completely separated (4 players cut into 3 groups) for a total of two sessions. My players look on how that situation unfolded fondly.It adds to the game. It just may take away from things that you don't want it to, like players sitting out for a bit, or conflict that can get "out of control" (this will vary group by group).If they didn't see him as altruistic for helping out with the goblins (I don't think it's been indicated one way or another), or they know of his brigand history, or they can relate with the girl making the claim (or even know her and the father), or they didn't line up with the mercenary PC's values, or they'd think that him running from the law was a sign of guilt, I could see them not backing the player.You can't. I guess we disagree here.The decision can easily make sense in-game. Especially running indicating guilt, since they don't know his PC well.The GM, as I've said, didn't block him. It sounds like he would have let him. He just polled the players, and presented the consequences of their actions. That's not railroading. That's saying, "this is how you guys will affect each other with this decision, not even accounting for my place in it."If we're using real world examples and not fantasy examples, lets note that it's nearly always the guilty who run away.Running away from accusation an indication of guilt, no strong tie to the PC, etc. You can ignore it, but it doesn't mean it's not there.I linked two quotes for a reason. The second was "are you willing to help him?" to which the GM got "a resounding 'NO!'" from the other players.They didn't plan on helping him if he ran.This is just baseless, in my mind, unless you judge it on a meta level. Which is fine for certain groups, but seemingly outside of this group's social contract.Feature, not a bug, for some groups. Again, you're pushing your preferences into a group that has seemingly embraced a social contract that is in conflict with them. To me, that indicates that they shouldn't be used to judge the situation.Yep, addressed this earlier. It leads back to "it's not worth it" for the style of play that others enjoy. What it can add doesn't make up for the loss for your play style. That's perfectly valid, but your preferences aren't a good fit to judge this group, in my opinion.Mercenary/brigand. All I know for sure is that he's killed goblins while defending the town, that he fights for money (mercenary), and that he's willing to rob people for it (brigand). I don't know if he was compensated for defending the town, or if it was selfless. I don't know if he demanded pay (I imagine it was offered without asking, but that's an honest wild guess) to even help out.A "heroic brigand" is jumping the gun, in my mind. It might be true, but it's still emphasizing "brigand" over "mercenary" for some reason.Yep, that's true. However, he could aim for the same thing, and decide to have his PC be the type to trust his friends to help clear his name without alienating the town just as easily.The PCs should have been built with a more cohesive mindset in mind. However, if one PC wants to leave the party (run into the forest, and most likely leave the area), I mean, point out what that means, but go ahead and let him, if he wants to. That's what happened here.I'd also note that, in my mind, heavy-handedly setting up a situation that stops the mercenary PC from leaving (like having him encounter another PC) is closer to railroading than "you ride away", in my opinion.I assumed they aren't friends, based on the "no strong ties to the town" line about the mercenary. The other PCs are invested in the town, apparently including helping it in the future. If they see the fleeing PC as guilty (as is entirely reasonable), I don't see why they'd help him, rather than bring him in.Calling people dicks because they don't fit your play style is pretty amusing, though. Good one.No, you're right, you can try a heavy-handed follow-up encounter. Of course, the player indicated he didn't like them. Not just about the hypothetical zombies/children, but about the situation that found him originally. He doesn't seem to like the idea that these are forced upon him. Suggesting it as a solution to help solve his situation is simply silly, in my opinion. And, like I said, I personally find that closer to railroading than "you ride away, like you wanted to." As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification